The Colonial Newsletter, no. 65

Volume 22, No. 2

July, 1983

Serial No. 65

THE ORIGINAL OBVERSE HUB DESIGN
for

THE FUG 10 CENTS of 1787

Sequential page 812

Copyright © 1983 by The Colonial Newsletter Foundation, Inc.

July 1983

THE COLONIAL NEWSLETTER Sequentml page 813

An Overview of Early American Coinage Technology (Continued)

by J. C. Spilman

• TOOLS OF THE DIE-SINKER

The fi nal topic for discussion in our Overview of Early American Coinage
Technology covers die-sinking tools. It was, of course, absolute necessary in the
operation of a mint to have a ready source of coinage dies , and on this subject
we have available very little documentation and almost no extant tooling for
examination. We do know from the literature the names of a few individuals in
America who were reported to have had the skills and experience for the
manufacture of coinage dies. Prominent among these were Abel Buell of
Connecticut (Fugio and Connecticut Dies), James F. Atlee (Machin's Mills
issues and some Vermont Dies), Joseph Collender of Boston and Jacob Perkins of
Newburyport (Massachusetts Cent and Half Cent dies), Walter Mould,

John Bailey and Thomas Goadsby (New Jersey dies), William Cooley of New York
(Vermont dies) and Ephram Brasher of New York. Several others names could be
added to this list but it is uncertain whether they were die-sinkers, per se, or
were coiners or merely partners in coining enterprises. In any case they left us
nothing other than their coinage product as evidence of their skills and techniques.

Even Samuel Thompson of Dublin who proclaimed himself on the frontispiece of
his manuscript (CNL p.768) as Die=Sinker makes only slight mention of dies. The
first is with reference to his coinage press sketch where a die is shown in the
lower right hand corner (CNL p.765). He comments H Fig. 3rd is a Die, the exact
size and shape of those used in the Tower." The second appears in a notation on
labor expense "Die sinker for dies necessary for one year -- 300:00:00." This

amount is exactly the same as his estimated total cost for all the machines, tools and
and furnaces, including an edge milling machine, to equip the entire mint!

Evidently the salary of the , die-sinker was the major labor cost item of the entire
operation. Thompson left blank his estimate for the salary of the Mint Master,
but the annual salary for the Assay Master was given as £ 200:00:00, plus two
workmen at £ 100:00:00 each, and a Porter at £ 30:00:00, but as to the
necessary skills, tools,, duties and even the number of dies to be provided,

Thompson leaves us guessing. In his detailed treatise on 18th century coinage
techniques, Samuel Thompson, whoever he was and whatever his credentials,
keeps his personal skills and die-sinking knowledge completely to himself!

A detailed discussion of the historical evolution of coinage technology and
especially the manufacturing methods for dies is well beyond the limited scope of
our Overview. Besides, it has already been very nicely accomplished by
Walter Breen in his booklet "Dies and Coinage. 1,20 An interesting observation that
Walter makes in his booklet is that the evolution of coinage technology flowed,
in general, from Italy to France to England, and then to America. Our

July 1983

THE COLONIAL NEWSLETTER Sequential page 814

comparisons of the techniques and machines of Diderot, Thompson and others, and
the Early American mints have followed this same general sequence which, we
suppose, is a natural consequence of the historical development of minting
practice .

So far as we know there is no Early American coinage die, hub, matrix, letter
punch or other tool in existence today. Hopefully something will turn up in the
future; however, this leaves us once again with only the coinage itself to
provide information. Accordingly, any discussion of die sinking techniques must be
extremely limited, but once again, coinage imperfections fill in some gaps and
provide a few answers.

Early numismatic writers such as John H. Hickcox (1858), Montville Dickinson
(1859), Sylvester S. Crosby (1873), and Edward Maris (1881) established the die
variety catagorization schemes which were expanded in later years by
Henry C. Miller (1919) and Hillyer Ryder (1919) who added greatly to the
basic die variety descriptions and somewhat to the photographic support of these
descriptions. Even today adaquate photographic documentation for all of the
Early American die varieties does not exist. These writers' basic worksand their
attribution techniques remain in use today essentially unchanged.

These early numismatic writers would note the repetitive use of certain letter and
ornament punches used in the preparation of various dies, and that different
punches appeared from time to time, large letter punches for example, but this
seems to have been the limit of their interest in the die making process. It was a
major undertaking in those formative years just to discover, sort out and
catagorize the various coins into similar groupings.

Even in our early days of technological curiousity, specifically the era of
Sylvester S. Crosby, Edward Maris and Henry C. Miller, certain die related
evidence was recognized as being obvious. Dies cracked with useage, and these
investigators included significant die cracks, and sometimes the progressive
development of cracks in their descriptions of die varieties. It was obvious that
a coin exhibiting a small crack was produced earlier in time than another on
which the crack showed extensive development. Once in awhile an investigator
would note the change in curvature of a die surface by observing that the coinage
showed a bowing up of the field resulting from the sinking of the face of the die
through continued use, but usually these early investigators only generated detailed
descriptions of each die variety by cataloging minute differences in observable
details of letter positions in legends relative to each other and to prominent
features of the central designs sufficient to establish with certainty that a particular
specimen was different from another and, therefore, originated from a different
die. Sometimes the more obvious identifiers - such as a double cut legend letter -
were specifically noted. Often this was carried to extremes. These precisely

July 1983

THE COLONIAL NEWSLETTER Sequential page 815

written detailed descriptions, generally without the benefit of supporting
photography, became the bane of modern collectors and are in themselves
enough to discourage any more than a passing interest in the die varieties of the
Early American coinages.

Only in recent years has any serious consideration been given to the reasons for
all of the trivia that went into these die descriptions. A trend in thinking has
developed toward answers explaining this trivia and the technological reasons for
the differences that permit distinguishing one die variety from another.

Today, however, it is absolutely essential to consider similarities rather than
differences in die varieties if one is to recognize the methodology of
manufacture. This is a complete reversal of all of the long established concepts
of our early numismatic researchers whose total thought process was based on
differences between die varieties. An obvious difference was justification for
catagorizing a new die variety, and that was thatl

Through the collective efforts of CNL Patrons a realization has emerged
that die making was a considerable part of the overall effort in an Early American
mint. Without dies there was no coinage, and the cost of the dies, based on
Thompson's figures, must have been tremendous I

Assembling all of the necessary coinage presses and cuttirig presses, rollers,
smelters, heat treating furnaces and other mint production machinery must have
been a relatively simple task compared with the job of obtaining coinage dies.

The only more difficult task seems to have been that of obtainihg the copper.

The skill necessary for die sinking was probably an anomoly of the times. The
artistic talents and skilled use of a graver would be found in a goldsmith or
silversmith or sculptor, but the skills for working in very hard metals - wrought
iron and steel - the forming of die blanks and the like, were those of the
blacksmith. One a genteel luxury craft for service to the wealthy, and the other
the hot and dirty work of supplying the basic metallic needs of the ordinary citizen
of early America. This combination of talent would normally be expected in the
trade of the cuttler or gunsmith. The die-sinker must have been an admixture of
all these crafts, and a very unusual individual! Keep in mind that the die-sinker
for a minting operation would need to be capable of producing and maintaining
all of the components necessary for the manufacture of dies from the die blanks
to assorted punches, gravers and files as well as the heavy machinery - screw
and drop devices - and furnaces. All this plus the artistic talent to render these
things into engraved and lettered die faces capable of producing a visually
attractive coinage product. It was without doubt an extremely demanding task I

July 1983

THE COLONIAL NEWSLETTER Sequential page 816

We know from the studies of Walter Breen and others the general techniques used
for the manufacture of dies in Europe. The overall design for a coin was transferred
onto a die face either by cutting away the metal by graver, or by the use of
letter punches and central device punches all created by hubs of various complexity.
In America Abel Buell used these same methods but he carried them one step
further through the use of a complex hub containing all design features in the
production of his 1786 Connecticut dies. 21 This was the most sophisticated
technique employed in America - others used more conventional techniques - but
in later years Buell reverted to the use of much less complex hubs in conjunction
with letter and ornament punches. We have concluded that the complex hub
approach resulted in substantial amounts of hand finishing being required on the
individual dies (because of the numereous imperfections in the technique) and in
the long run he may have concluded that it was less time consuming to produce a
large quantity of dies in the more conventional manner. We also do not know
whether Buell's complex hub technique involved sinking a hub into a die blank
mounted in a mechanical press, or whether it consisted of a casting process. The
manufacture of coinage dies by casting bronze in a ceramic mold is an ancient
process developed during Greek and Roman times. 22 It may well have been that
Buell, being a skilled lapidary familiar with the uses of minerals, used a similar
technique to produce those 1786 Connecticut dies. Additional study should
confirm or disprove this idea.

Some twenty five years after publication of "Early Coins of America"

Sylvester S. Crosby made an outstanding Fugio discovery. In the January 1902
issue of The American Journal of Numismatics (AJN^he published an article
titled "Notes on an Undescribed Trial-Piece Bearings Impressions of Two Hubs
for a Fugio Pattern." This copper specimen, examined and described by Crosby,
was indeed struck between two working hubs rather than dies. Crosby says
"As this piece was struck between two hubs, it shows a incised or intaglio
and reversed impression; that is to say, the hub being in relief or repousse on
both obverse and reverse, it produced an incused die, with legends and devices
reversed. "

Crosby goes on in great detail to discuss differences from the regular Fugio coins
and because of these differences concluded that both of these hubs were to have
been used to manufacture dies for Fugio "patterns", hence his title for the article.

As supporting evidence Crosby also presented a description of the then known
techniques for producing dies, and states "For information ... I applied to
Mr. Henry Mitchell, the well-known seal and die engraver, who kindly
explained the process of making dies before the introduction of modern inventions,
and confirmed my theory of the method probably employed in making the hub of
which the piece under notice supplies the evidence.

"The process is in effect as follows: A matrix for each part of the design is made
and hardened; from each of these matrices a hub is produced, which is also

July 1983

THE COLONIAL NEWSLETTER Sequential page 817

hardened. Following the same method, the legends are added, each letter being
separately impressed in the die by a steel punch. The next process is the
assembling of these several parts for an intaglio, or incused, impression in a steel
blank; this, if satisfactory, becomes the matrix, or "mother-die," from which a
hub in relief, or technically in repousse, may be obtained for the production of
duplicate dies. If unsatisfactory, alterations are made upon this hub, and another
blank is impressed with it, in which still further alterations may be made, and so
on successively, altering sometimes the hub, sometimes the die, the latter finally
giving the result of the different changes through which the hubs and dies have gone
as the work advanced, until a satisfactory result has been attained."

Readers with an interest in Crosby's detailed discussion of differences between the
trial-piece and the Fugio varieties described in "Early Coins of America" should
consult the AJN article as these comparisons do not serve any useful purpose in
our present discussion. We certainly must give Crosby credit for a first attempt
in American numismatics to explain the reasons for the differences in dies and how
they came aboutl Our point, however, is that Crosby was still so involved in the
minute differences that he neglected to study the striking similarities with the
regular Fugio coinage and therefore totally failed to recognize the original
obverse (sun-dial) hub design for the Fugio Coppers I

Crosby had constructed several replicas of the two sides of this trial-piece.
Illustrated on the frontispiece of this issue is one of these replicas. This is
an extremely well made impression from the sun-dial side of the trial-piece.

It appears to have been manufactured by spreading a thin layer of molten
lead/tin alloy on a sheet of copper and then pressing the trial-piece into the
molten alloy to obtain a permanent impression, just as a die would strike a coin.
Photo-optical comparisons of this impression with Crosby's trial-piece show that it
is a dimensionally accurate duplicate and that all features were precisely
transferred. We do not know of the existence of a similar impression of the
reverse of the trial-piece. Other extant uniface replications in gold bearing
the name J. Jarvis on the back side are not dimensionally accurate and are
believed to have been made by others at some later date. Also illustrated
on page 818 are enlarged photographs of both obverse and reverse of
Crosby's trial-piece? 4 These photographs were made in the CNL photographic
facility. As we look at these illustrations we should recognize that we are
seeing exactly the same design configuration that a die-sinker would view
looking down at a die face after the hub had been sunk into that die face and
before the legend lettering and ornamentation was added.

Crosby's trial-piece tells us even more than an original die could do because it
represents an intermediate step indie manufacture. Note in particular that the
trial-piece shows both the central device design plus the surrounding border
dentils. This working hub configuration was used by Abel Buell for his
1787 Fugio dies and also for his 1787 Mailed Bust Left Connecticut dies, and
their respective reverses. That is - the central device surrounded by the border

July 1983

THE COLONIAL NEWSLETTER Sequential page 818

CROSBY'S TRIAL-PIECE

2.5 X ENLARGEMENT

pattern. This configuration represents the next evolutionary step in die-sinking
technology following his complex-hub technique used for the 1786 Connecticut
dies. The border dentil design appears to have been fabricated by cutting the
dentil pattern into the end of a tubular metal pipe, and this pipe-die tool was
then used as a master punch to impress the border pattern into a matrix which was
then used as the master matrix for the production of working hubs. Crosby's
trial-piece was impressed between two such working hubs. This same pipe-die
was used for the Fugio hubs and for the 1787 Connecticut hubs; the patterns are
identical and match like cogsof a gear when compared photo-optical ly.

This discussion assumes that our readers are familiar with the terminology of die
die-sinking tools. All of us probably have a good understanding of dies and we
will illustrate a master hub later in this discussion, but the intermediate tooling
may be more obscure. Crosby's trial-piece is an impression made between two
working hubs. To help in understanding this terminology we call our readers
attention to the recent discovery and publication of a die, punch and matrix for
the Virginia Halfpenny coinage of 1773 which are located in the Royal Mint
collection in London. 25 This discussion and the illustrations will help in
understanding the intermediate steps between working hubs and master hubs
(or punches) in 18th century die manufacture. Illustrated in the article are
central device working punches (hubs) for obverse and reverse dies,
a working matrix for the obverse punch, and an unfinished die. The terms punch
and hub and the terms die and matrix are often used interchangeably because they
are identical in appearence and differ, actually, in the manner in which they are
used.

July 1983

THE COLONIAL NEWSLETTER Sequential page 819

One other major die sinking tool is required to produce a series of working dies,
and that is a master hub (or punch). The master hub is the first product of the
die-sinker, hand carved in extremely high relief using the highest quality
"tool grade" steel available. It is an exquisitely sculptured work of art. After
polishing and heat treating the sculpture is protected from mechanical stress by
being shrunk fit into an encasing steel ring whose compressive forces protect it
from spreading while it is being forced into the material that will comprise the
working matrix. Illustrated on page 820 is such a master hub.

This tool is a master hub (master device punch) produced by the famous French
die maker Jean Pierre Droz who worked for several years with Matthew Boulton
at the Soho Mint in England.^ Droz was offered an opportunity to come to
America in 1793 to work at the U.S.Mint, as desired by Thomas Jefferson,
but declined the opportunity saying that he got so terribly sea sick each time he
crossed the English Channel that he simply could not face an ocean voyagel

This Droz hub was used in the production of the reverses of several
Admiral Nelson medals (Bramsen 436 & 437, and possibly others). During use
the hub suffered damage in several places, most notably in the area of the trident
points. Portions of the two outer points broke off and only the central point remains
intact today. This progressive breakup of the master hub can clearly be seen today
on the various medals; the final dies required careful handwook to reconstruct the
damaged areas.

Our purpose here is to illustrate the nature of a major die-sinking tool. Other
writings will cover the history of this hub and the specifics of its use in the
production of the Nelson medals. This master hub is not physically configured
like a die. It is, instead, a flat disk composed of two parts. The inner section
is high quality tool steel (circa 1790) out of which the very high relief engraving
was accomplished. The outer section is a heavy ring which appears to have been
shrunk fit around the inner section to prevent spreading during sinking into a
matrix.

The engraved central section of this master hub is sculptured in three stages.

Stage 1 is the principal design itself. Stage 2 is the backup engraving which
physically supports the Stage 1 design detail. See the enlarged photograph of
the trident points on page 821 . Stage 3 is the metal base, or field, of the hub.
Only the uppermost portions of Stage 1 details are sunk into d matrix; thus,

Droz s signing of the hub in the Stage 3 field would never appear on either a
matrix or a die produced from the hub.

The master hub for the Fugio sun-dial would have looked very similar to the Droz
master hub. It comprised the basic sun-dial design with its internal details as they
appear on the Crosby trial-piece.

July 1983

THE COLONIAL NEWSLETTER Sequential page 820

July 1983

THE COLONIAL NEWSLETTER Sequential page 822

We believe the border dentil design was added to a matrix containing an impression
from the master hub using the earlier mentioned "pipe-die" punch. Then, from this
matrix, some quantity of working hubs were raised to be used for the manufacture
of production dies to which individual legend letters and numerals, ornaments and
central design changes were added on each die.

In earlier Fugio studies 27 we established that a major design error was made
during the cutting of the ring of roman numerals on the sun-dial plate.

Specifically, an extraneous fifth upright was added to the numeral INI.

Crosby’s trial-piece shows considerably greater detail in this area than does
any of the extant coinage and reveals that the mistake was more serious than
earlier believed. Layout lines extend from the bottom (inner) end of the
extraneous upright showing that the engraver - whom we believe to have been
Abel Buell - was in the process of adding a complete V to the INI before he
realized his mistake. Having begun the removal of metal from the sculptured
design he was stuck with his error which he chose to hide on each die by
punching an olive ornament over the error. It was then necessary to add olives
between each of the numerals on the dial plate to balance the design. We are
certain that this is an olive because the same punch was used by Buell to
ornament the olive branch, containing leaves and olives, in the right hand of
Ms. Liberty on some of his 1787 (Connecticut dies.

The original hub design for the Fugio obverse appears to be somewhat lacking
in strength and boldness. Evidently Abel Buell and James Jarvis (and possibly
the Federal design review committee) felt the same way. Accordingly, in
addition to the olives, they added by hand on each die a pebble surface to the
central dial plate, and this obscured the existing floral design, and then
reconstructed the identical floral design by. punching new patterns into the
central dial plate. The eyes of the sun were also enhanced by punches. Then
the legend letters and various ornamentation were added. It appears that the
MIND YOUR BUSINESS lettering below the sun-dial was added utilizing either
a lettering guide or a logotype which is a punch having multiple letters. Three
may have been used, one for each of the three words, but additional investigation
is necessary before a positive determination can be made.

These additions on individual Fugio dies were rather extensive and were carefully
accomplished; however, they failed to complete obscure the original floral design
on the interior of the dial plate. Photo-optical comparisons of the sun-dial on
Crosby s trial-piece with individual coinage die varieties indicate that vestiges
of the original floral design remain. These vestiges have been identified on obverses
5,7,8, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 18. It is very helpful to know what to look fori Crosby's
trial -piece provides this guidance and represents a unique opportunity in
Early American numismatics.

July 1983

THE COLONIAL NEWSLETTER Sequential page 823

A knowledge of the general production techniques for Early American coinage dies
enables us to reach new conclusions regarding the extant coinage. It is now
possible to determine with reasonable certainty the emission sequence of various die
varieties, the general sequence of usage of working hubs and punches, and even the
sequence of manufacture of production dies.

Just as the Droz hub suffered damage during use, so did the Fugio obverse hub.

This damage is most apparent at the ends of the rays radiating from the sun. In
its terminal state (recognizing that there was probably more than one working hub)
it produced the "Club Ray" Fugios. At this stage the rays had disintergrated to the
degree that required their almost total reconstruction on individual dies sunk
from this hub, and whoever accomplished the task did not seem to care to
expend the necessary time to do it correctly, so they simply added the heavy
"Club" rays to fill in the spaces. Vestigal remains of the fine rays are there
and can be observed on each of the "Club Ray" varieties. This progressive hub
damage , but to a much lesser degree, can also be recognized on the "Fine Ray"
varieties. Similar hub disintegration can be seen on the central devices of the
various Connecticut dies.

It is also of importance to understand the effects of various tools on the metals
used for coinage dies. These effects are best determined by experimentation
and it is the need for accomplishment of this experimentation that is one of the
driving forces toward the Foundation's goal to establish a reconstruction of an
Early American mint which would include the experimental usage of tools and
metals closely representing those available during the 1785 to 1788 time period.

Some of these metal effects are already well known but have not been clearly
recognized in their numismatic connotations. For example, when a punch is
driven into a die face the metal is not removed ■ it is displaced ■ and must go
somewhere. We know that it tends to move aside and to rise up around the
immediate edge of the punch. On the other hand, in engraving the metal is
actually cut away rather than being forced elsewhere and thus does not create
the severe rise of metal in the vicinity of the punch. A very important step in the
the manufacture of a die was accomplished by polishing the die faces, sometimes
the word grinding is used, in a manner similar to modern lapidary practice of
polishing large mineral specimens.

If this polishing is not sufficient to remove the ridges of metal, then the raised
features on a coin will have the strange appearence of sinking into the field,
and on rare occasions this effect is encountered on coinage specimens.

In most cases the polishing was overdone. That is - carried well beyond the point
necessary to produce a good die - and at times was carried to the point that some
of the design detail was polished completely off the die. That still happens today in
modern die manufacture. It is generally believed that the main purpose of die

July 1983

THE COLONIAL NEWSLETTER Sequential page 824

polishing was to produce a bright field on the finished coin, which it did, but the
more essential purpose was to remove those metal ridges which, if not removed,
resulted in a very strange and unattractive looking coinl

Following polishing the die was hardened by heat treating and placed into service.
Improper heat treating produced a large quantity of defective coinage. Excessive
hardening resulted in brittle dies that cracked easily while insufficient hardening
resulted in a too soft die face that would sink with usage and produced a coin
having a bowed-up-in-the-center appearence. There is considerable evidence
to suggest that attempts were made to repair damaged and defective dies by
repolishing the die to remove the surface defect. The most spectacular example
of this is the "Horned Bust" Connecticut of 1787, Miller obverse 4. See the
illustrations on page 825. Here an attempt was made to repair the Small die crack
by polishing. It may have worked for awhile but the crack continued to develop
into the die and more and more metal chipped away. The results of die polishing
can best be seen in the area of hair just below the ear. Much of this detail was
removed during the ineffective polishing effort.

In the most extreme cases the image was almost entirely ground off the die and
the die blank then reused . This appears to have occurred several times in the
early years of the Connecticut coinage. An example is the following 1785
Connecticut varieties: 6.3-Gol, 6.3-Go2 and 1-E. These are diagrammed

on page 826 as they appear on the CNL Experimental Die Analysis Chart for the
Connecticut Coppers. 28 Photo-optical comparisons seem to suggest that these
five die varieties, combined into three combinations, issued from only two die
blanks. These results are tentative because we do not yet have sufficiently
accurate photographic equipment to make an absolutely positive determination.

Our preliminary conclusions regarding this sequence is that the original G.2
reverse was repolished and so drastically reworked that Miller failed to
recognize it and identified the reworked die as G.l which was in turn again
drastically reworked and became E. Sometime during this chain of events
Obverse 6.3 was reworked and became known as Obverse 1 . There is no
question that today these varieties are quite different but an analysis of the
exact similarities suggests the sequence outlined above. The final result, if
this analysis is correct and there were no other reworkings prior to the
Obverse 6.3 and Reverse G.2 die states, is that only two die blanks, two
chunks of metal, produced five different coinage varietiesl

All sorts of accidents befell dies during their use. They were slammed together
without a planchet between them and die-clash marks appeared on subsequent
coinage. They cracked and these were sometimes repaired by the die-sinker
by polishing. Sometimes things fell onto them as in the case of NOVA 1-A where
just below the ATIO in CONSTELLATIO appear the border dentils of some other
die that was probably dropped on it. It appears that die maintenance was a
continuing problem in Early American mints as well as other mints and that the
die-sinkers task did not end with the initial fabrication of a die.

July 1983

THE COLONIAL NEWSLETTER Sequential page 825

EARLY DIE STATE
(BEFORE REWORK)

CONNECTICUT OBVERSF 4 of 1787

LATE DIE STATE
(AFTER REWORK)

3.25 X ENLARGEMENT

July 1983 THE COLONIAL NEWSLETTER Sequential page 826

NG

and USAGE

July 1983

THE COLONIAL NEWSLETTER Sequential page 827

We have not mentioned in this discussion the reverse (ring-side) of the Crosby
trial -piece because it may not represent the original hub design as did the
obverse. It appears to be a derivitive hub and very possibly a true pattern as Crosby
believed even though no coinage is known to have been produced from it.

We have not studied this side to the same degree as the obverse or made an
attempt to establish its position within the developmental sequence of the
Fugio reverse designs. Let it suffice to say at this point that we believe the
reverse (ring side) design started with much greater complexity of design and
became much simpler in the final version, just the opposite of the evolution
of the obverse design.

• CONCLUSION:

This completes our Overview of Early American Coinage Technology. While it may
appear from this discussion that a great deal is known regarding Early American
coinage techniques and die manufacture, far more remains unknown. All of the
conclusions made during these discussions are based entirely on visual observations
as we said in the beginning. Today, modern technology is capable of analysis in
depth in the fields of metallic fabrication techniques. It is a second goal of
The Colonial Newsletter Foundation to establish the specialized laboratories
and to develop the procedures necessary to provide answers to questions that we
are now just learning to ask regarding Early American numismatics. The answers
are there - within the coinage itself - and we can find them even though we may
never locate an original Early American coinage die, hub, punch or other tooll

Do we have enough basic data at this point in time to reconstruct an Early American
mint? We believe the answer is yes; but, it must be realized that such an endeavor
would require a considerable amount of iterative learning. The first collection of
equipment and facilities would be but a beginning - an opportunity to experiment
and to learn the many problems that faced our Early American coiners, and to
duplicate the techniques that produced the copper coinage of early America.

It will be a substantial undertaking.

Samuel Thompson described such an undertaking to process not only copper coinage
but gold and silver as well. Did he succeed? Was his purpose only to document
the technology of the times, as was Diderot's, or did he seek to establish a working
mint someplace in Ireland? Perhaps we may never find out, but nevertheless his
manuscript serves us well today as we attempt to tie together all of the bits and
pieces provided by others. As always, our Patron's comments and suggestions
will be appreciated.

July 1983

THE COLONIAL NEWSLETTER Sequential page 828

• ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

This Overview has presented a number of new concepts and ideas in the field of
Early American numismatics. It is the product of many individuals, gleaned over
a considerable number of years, who have cooperated in obtaining data and
discussing the results through correspondence and in the pages of CNL. The
majority are Patrons of The Colonial Newsletter Foundation, and others were
simply kind enough to share their knowledge, to advise in a constructive spirit,
and to assist when requested. We sincerely thank each one of you.

We owe special recognition and thanks to the following organizations and
individuals for their specific contributions and insight:

The American Numismatic Society

Especially two former Directors of the Society,

Mr. Sawyer McA. Mosser and Mr. George C. Miles,
now both deceased, who assisted in obtaining film copies
of manuscripts in the Society's Library for our use.

Also - Mr. Francis D. Campbell, Jr., Librarian, for
checking Society records and documents for answers
to specific questions regarding content.

Edward R. Barnsley of Beach Haven, New Jersey

If any one contributor deserves special recognition for our
production of this Overview it is Ned Barnsley whose
persistent questioning regarding peculiarities of the
Connecticut Coppers and his personal interest in coining
presses were the principal driving forces behind the
assembledge of data for the Overview. Ned provided many
of the illustrations of fly presses and originated the idea of
the "cookie cutter" planchet tool.

Theodore L. Craige (deceased)

Ted Craige was another enthusiastic researcher of the
Connecticut Coppers whose curiousity regarding similarities
as opposed to differences resulted in a number of discoveries
that led to the arrangements of many of the die varieties as
they appear on the CNL Die Analysis Chart and in particular
G.l, 6.3, G.2, 1 and E varieties discussed in the Overview.

John J. Ford, Jr. of Rockville Centre, New York

Our special thanks to John for permission to photograph
Crosby's Trial-Piece and for associated information regarding
its' history and that of related specimens.

July 1983

THE COLONIAL NEWSLETTER Sequential page 829

Robert J. Lindesmith of Dayton, Washington

It was Bob's keen observations and questioning of
similarities between the varieties of 1786 Connecticut
Coppers that first brought to light the need to change our
long established mindset for considering only differences
observable on Early American coinage specimens,,

Richard Picker (deceased)

The numismatic spirit of Richard Picker is alive and well
in this Overview. His knowledge and influence are pervasive.

He was continually searching, finding and sharing his
discoveries with others and he never failed to provide
assistance when it was requested. Shortly before his
death in February of this year he telephoned ye Editor
from Florida and asked that we not send him a research
file that he had requested earlier; he said that he would
not be needing it - that his illness has worsened and that
he would return to New York - and he said goodby.

Gary A. Trudgen of Endwell, New York

The supporting data regarding Thomas Machin and
Mach?n J s Mills was provided by Gary Trudgen. Significant
new personal data regarding Thomas. Machin has been
researched and compiled by Gary and will appear in the next
issue of CNL.

Raymond H. Williamson of Lynchburg, Virginia

Special credit is due Ray for sharing his discovery of the
J. P. Droz hub and for allowing us to study and photograph
it and for his permission for use of that data in conjunction
with our Overview.

Photographic Credits

Diderot Plates - from microfilm provided by the Library of

the City of New York through the courtest of Edward R. Barnsley.

Connecticut 5.5-M of 1787, p.784, from John D. Wright.

Fugio 8-B, p. 789, from David Sonderman.

Fugio 12-X, p.798, from The American Numismatic Society.

All photographs were made by The Colonial Newsletter Foundation.

July 1983

THE COLONIAL NEWSLETTER Sequential page 830

NOTES to An Overview of Early American Coinage Technology (Continued)

20. Breen, Walter. "Dies & Coinage", Qwertyuiopress, New York City, 1962.

21* Spilman, J. C. "Abel Buell - Our American Genius - Part II - The Diesinker

of 1786." The Colonial Newsletter, Volume 13, No. 1, February 1974,

Serial No. 39, pages 423-434.

22. Rohner, Robert R. "Ancient Coin Dies: Engraved or Cast?"

The Numismatist, Volume 96, No. 5, May 1983, pages 929-931 .

23. Crosby, Sylvester S. "Notes on an Undescribed Trial-Piece Bearing Impressions
of Two Hubs for a Fugio Pattern." The American Journal of Numismatics,
January, 1902, Volume 36, No. 3, pages 76-80 with plate.

24. This is a new photograph of the trial-piece made by CNL. The illustration
in AJN is very poor and We were unable to locate a copy with suitable
resolution for reproduction. The AJN plate contains seven photographs and
four wood cuts which support Crosby’s comparisons with illustrations
contained in his "Early Coins of America."

25. Dyer, Grab m and Gaspar, Peter P. "A Virginia Numismatic Discovery",
Museum Notes No. 27, pages 231-237 and plates 30 & 31 . The American
Numismatic Society, New York, 1982.

26. This Droz Hub was discovered in 1976 by CNL Patron Raymond H. Williamson.
It was a part of a 50,000 piece collection sold for a Tennessee client by a
North Carolina firm in a series of mail bid auctions.

27. Spilman, James C. "Some Comments on the Fugio Cents of 1787",

The Colonial Newsletter, Volume 2, No. 3, July 1961, Serial No. 4,
sequential pages 24-32.

28. Spilman, James C. "An Experimental Die Analysis Chart for the Connecticut
Coppers", The Colonial Newsletter, Volume 16, No. 1, March 1977,

Serial No. 48, pages 572-577.